pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why I hate subs  (Read 12065 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 16, 2009, 15:45 »
0
An image of mine - one of my best-sellers -  was purchased at subscription by J.P.Morgan.  They can afford credit prices, can't they? And they would if that's all we offered.  Humpf.  I hate subs. >:(

Regards,
Adelaide


hali

« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2009, 16:10 »
0
that makes two of us. i keep seeing sales and wonder why the $ sign did not increase too much. in that sense, i prefer the other sites that are slower to sell, but you get a dollar or more each time.
but it's becoming a harsh reality. like so many of us here mentioning, what can we do? if you know you can get a TV for 20 dollars instead of 200 , would you still go to the store that sells it for 200? 
and we will see more Photo Shelters closing too, as you can promise to sell images at a higher price but if no one buys them, it's only "vapor sales". Zero of $50 is still zero... like air (vapor).

RT


« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2009, 16:13 »
0
I'm sure they could afford the price on a traditional agency like Getty or Alamy also, but if you upload an image to a microstock site you have to be prepared to sell it at microstock prices whether it's a sub or PPD, and to sell it to anyone whether they're the corner shop down the road or a multi national company.

That's what the microstock business is all about, try not to let emotions factor into it.







vonkara

« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2009, 16:55 »
0
While I'm having more than 50% of absurd XL subs at FT and StockXpert, I get 5.05$ for an XL at IS. LOL where's the logic. Agencies who added subs lately are just trying to survive. Funny though

« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2009, 17:06 »
0
rightly or wrongly I have always thought that subs often provide huge discounts to the people / companies who dont actually need the discount :)

a way to stay wealthy is not to spend.  makes me think of the person a couple of months ago saying he wasn't credited for usage when an image was used from sxc.hu? (the free library) in a movie.  I would think they could have afforded at least micro prices :)

« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2009, 17:45 »
0
This is the very reason that I closed all my other accounts and became an IS exclusive. I could not stand the idea that a large file could be purchased for pennies.

I may not make as much this way, but I only have to upload to one site.
And when I do sell a large file I get several dollars not 35 cents.


RacePhoto

« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2009, 17:51 »
0
Answer to all of these. Why pay $150 or $50 if you can get a useful photo for under one dollar? Why pay anything if someone is giving them away on sxc.hu? That site shouold be sxc2b.hu  ;D

Does anyone here look at gas prices and you would pick a station selling for 10c less a gallon, when all it means is a $1.20 to $2.00 difference on a fill up? You can't afford to pay the extra $2 and save the time hunting or waiting? That's an extreme, because often people will buy at one station over another for 3 cents a gallon and save 60 cents. Whoopee!

Just pointing out that because a movie with, lets say, a million dollar budget, is paying high prices for other things and is spending a big figure to produce a product, and can afford to pay for photos at a reasonable price, that doesn't mean they aren't going to be cheap and save money, if they can download a photo for free?

I don't blame them for taking what some people put on the web for free, with no rights attached. Not even a demand for photo credit if it's used. We feed the beast that sells photos on a subscription basis. I'm just one more person who does this and have fun with SS sales.

If someone here doesn't like subs or getting 25c for a sale and finds that no credit and no pay from a free site is objectionable to them, I say, Don't Upload or Don't Complain. No one is holding your hand in a fire and making you upload to free sites. No one is holding your photos hostage on a subscription site.

I suppose there is a third alternative. If you think the agencies are screwing you or that you aren't getting enough for your photos, you can start your own agency that charges the right prices that gives photographers a fair share. Otherwise, all the complaining and hang wringing does nothing to change the system.

I knew when I started that my MicroStock photos would be sold for under a dollar each. I joined the sites, I applied for permission to sell on IS and SS. No one twisted my arm or lied to me. What's there to complain about?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2009, 17:59 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2009, 19:49 »
0
Answer to all of these. Why pay $150 or $50 if you can get a useful photo for under one dollar? Why pay anything if someone is giving them away on sxc.hu? That site shouold be sxc2b.hu  ;D

Does anyone here look at gas prices and you would pick a station selling for 10c less a gallon, when all it means is a $1.20 to $2.00 difference on a fill up? You can't afford to pay the extra $2 and save the time hunting or waiting? That's an extreme, because often people will buy at one station over another for 3 cents a gallon and save 60 cents. Whoopee!

Just pointing out that because a movie with, lets say, a million dollar budget, is paying high prices for other things and is spending a big figure to produce a product, and can afford to pay for photos at a reasonable price, that doesn't mean they aren't going to be cheap and save money, if they can download a photo for free?

I don't blame them for taking what some people put on the web for free, with no rights attached. Not even a demand for photo credit if it's used. We feed the beast that sells photos on a subscription basis. I'm just one more person who does this and have fun with SS sales.

If someone here doesn't like subs or getting 25c for a sale and finds that no credit and no pay from a free site is objectionable to them, I say, Don't Upload or Don't Complain. No one is holding your hand in a fire and making you upload to free sites. No one is holding your photos hostage on a subscription site.

I suppose there is a third alternative. If you think the agencies are screwing you or that you aren't getting enough for your photos, you can start your own agency that charges the right prices that gives photographers a fair share. Otherwise, all the complaining and hang wringing does nothing to change the system.

I knew when I started that my MicroStock photos would be sold for under a dollar each. I joined the sites, I applied for permission to sell on IS and SS. No one twisted my arm or lied to me. What's there to complain about?


Well, I often get 7 or 12 dollars, or more at IS. I wouldn't sell XL and bigger files for cents. Yes, at the beginning of microstock we were selling for way less, but then most os us hadn't real choice, because Macro doors were closed for us. Now it's posible to choose; selling just at sites that a) have reasonable subs plans for contributors --that's to say, IS   or, b) have and opt-out for subs.That  wil drecease your number of downloads, but possibly won't drecrease your income.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2009, 20:21 by loop »

« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2009, 20:02 »
0
Luckily, my subs sales are going down, down, down. Main reason is that SS is just a shadow of it old self. I suspect that due to the financial crisis, many are becoming more selective when it comes to image downloading, which makes subs less economically viable. The "all-you-can-eat" concept may not last forever.

Result: we sell less photos, but earn more, or at least I do  :)

Tuilay

« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2009, 20:50 »
0
Without trying to sound too cynical  ;)
it's like the age old response to WHY DO THEY CLIMB EVEREST?
because it's there !
So the simplest and most obvious response to WHY WOULD JPM PAY SO LITTLE FOR MY PHOTOS?  because they can.

Unless we overhaul the microstock marketplace, we are not going to see anything BUT subs, and even lower prices.  We have to be satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the table.  What other solution is there, except to face reality to grin and bear it. I am a micro stock photographer. I sell my images for peanuts. My friends all laugh, but hey, I can sell it for more elsewhere. But I don't see them making any sales with their promises of higher prices and a bigger chunk of commission for me.
Do you?  8)

vonkara

« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2009, 21:04 »
0
Luckily, my subs sales are going down, down, down. Main reason is that SS is just a shadow of it old self. I suspect that due to the financial crisis, many are becoming more selective when it comes to image downloading, which makes subs less economically viable. The "all-you-can-eat" concept may not last forever.

Result: we sell less photos, but earn more, or at least I do  :)
That make a lot of sense. I hope to see new credits prices everywhere soon, at the moment they saw a decrease.

« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2009, 21:37 »
0
I am not complaining that they buy it for the cheaper price - it is obvious anyone would.  My point is that not long ago, from the main agencies (the "big 7") only SS and 123RF offered subs.  Now only BigStock doesn't, and IS if you consider theirs is a totally different model.

Did the sites really need to go that path?  Subs is not for the casual buyer.  Designers could still download a comp image and then buy the ones they really need in the end.  What subs offers them is, instead of buying only 20 images @ US$10, get 750 images for the same price!  Even if they don't download the 750 images, it still a much better deal.

Microstock was and still is very cheap.  There was no need to make them even cheaper, except to get a bigger market share.  Ok, this is good for the sites, this is business at the capitalist way.  But are they really improving the market this way?  I see a lot of SS'ers complaining of less sales, can we assume that part of the former SS customers moved to other sites offering subs?  The total number of subscribers must have increased too, as the subs prices basically remain the same, whereas the credit prices have increased, making subs more attractive for frequent buyers.  Why do not focus instead on buyers that are not in the market yet, many who may not even know this market exists, who would buy images per credit?

I don't merely complain.  I stopped uploading to FT and 123RF (not to mention CS and CanStockPhoto out of the big 7), I opted out from StockXpert, I was never at SS.  DT has mixed results, so I still upload to them.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2009, 22:03 »
0
I am not complaining that they buy it for the cheaper price - it is obvious anyone would.  My point is that not long ago, from the main agencies (the "big 7") only SS and 123RF offered subs.  Now only BigStock doesn't, and IS if you consider theirs is a totally different model.

Did the sites really need to go that path?  Subs is not for the casual buyer.  Designers could still download a comp image and then buy the ones they really need in the end.  What subs offers them is, instead of buying only 20 images @ US$10, get 750 images for the same price!  Even if they don't download the 750 images, it still a much better deal.

Microstock was and still is very cheap.  There was no need to make them even cheaper, except to get a bigger market share.  Ok, this is good for the sites, this is business at the capitalist way.  But are they really improving the market this way?  I see a lot of SS'ers complaining of less sales, can we assume that part of the former SS customers moved to other sites offering subs?  The total number of subscribers must have increased too, as the subs prices basically remain the same, whereas the credit prices have increased, making subs more attractive for frequent buyers.  Why do not focus instead on buyers that are not in the market yet, many who may not even know this market exists, who would buy images per credit?

I don't merely complain.  I stopped uploading to FT and 123RF (not to mention CS and CanStockPhoto out of the big 7), I opted out from StockXpert, I was never at SS.  DT has mixed results, so I still upload to them.

Regards,
Adelaide

So you cut out a lot of the sites. Isn't it better to go exclusive with iStock? For me it was either sell everywhere (inc. subs) or go exclusive with iStock. What % of your income is from iS?

« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2009, 22:11 »
0
Adelaide,
I very much agree with you in the principles, and I'm very much opposed to subs. Still, it looks to me now as if most of the sites offering subs has not increased subs sales. For me, they have actually gone down. It may have to do with economy, as I mention above, but it may also be because, at SS, customers were locked into subs (until they offered their own PPD solution), while at other places, they can switch around easily, a few months with subs, building a collection, and a few months without.

Just a theory of course, and there's no scientific evidence, other than how sales are developing within my portfolio. First 15 days of January this year, I had 36% less subs downloads at SS than the same period in 2008, with a 50% larger portfolio this year. Subs sales at other agencies aren't even close to compensating for that, but regular sales are up, particularly at FT, DT, BS and 123.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2009, 22:12 by epixx »

RacePhoto

« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2009, 00:55 »
0
Without trying to sound too cynical  ;)
it's like the age old response to WHY DO THEY CLIMB EVEREST?
because it's there !
So the simplest and most obvious response to WHY WOULD JPM PAY SO LITTLE FOR MY PHOTOS?  because they can.

Unless we overhaul the microstock marketplace, we are not going to see anything BUT subs, and even lower prices.  We have to be satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the table.  What other solution is there, except to face reality to grin and bear it. I am a micro stock photographer. I sell my images for peanuts. My friends all laugh, but hey, I can sell it for more elsewhere. But I don't see them making any sales with their promises of higher prices and a bigger chunk of commission for me.
Do you?  8)

And I agree. We are stuck in the middle of a price war between the agencies. I'm not being all uppity about this. I just uploaded four new photos to SV which is like pissing into the ocean.  ;D I have most of my sales at SS and I don't mind. I admire all the people who have taken a stand against the subs and just as much know that some have bit the bullet and take whatever we can.

I guess I was trying to say, if people don't like the return from subs, just stop allowing them and take a stand. The agencies don't care what we think or write here. Nothing is going to change because someone complains.

Every time some new mini-micro comes online and people support them with uploads, we are supporting lower prices, because we are feeding the low price competition. I'm not going to do it, but it's a free world, where everyone has their own choices to do as they please. Some day, and things are already sorting out, there will be the top ten Micro sites, with things looking like that will be seven and the other three will be insignificant.

Want to make a difference? Either go exclusive or stop sending anything to the non-viable sites. This will speed up the process, after which time, the big sites will be able to raise their prices.

Does anyone here answer spam emails? I doubt it. So why do we keep getting them? Because if no one responded or no one bought into that garbage, they wouldn't make any profit and would go away. Same goes for sites like El Bummo, or the next new site that will be opening this month. Stop answering the calls, stop replying to the spam, stop uploading to every new site that comes around paying peanuts, (selling subscriptions) and they will go away.

I don't see this happening because the reality is, many people are grabbing for every dime they can make. But in theory it would made a difference in the long term.

« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2009, 03:08 »
0
I agree with you all regarding subs. I hate them, but they are reality. Their very existence all got to do with a simple business principle that determines the price of any commodity in the commercial market: supply and demand. 

I remember way back in 1999 when I bough my Canon 400 /2.8 L lens, every person at my local camera club looked with awe at that lens and the images that I was able to produce with it (specifically wildlife and sport). Today in our club there are so many members with L lenses such as big 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 lenses that no one is taking any notice of them any more. Not only do they own these lenses, but with fierce competition and critical reviews their technique has improved to the point that they are able to produce excellent images with their equipment.  No longer am I king of the hill simply because I own equipment that allow me to take pictures that few others were able to produce. This was not all bad because it forced me to become even better. I would still like to believe that today my wildlife images are better than most, but gone are the days when the bulk of my work are one of a kind.

My point is that no matter how good your images are, there will be somebody that can produce similar images, and can produce them in bulk. That once in a lifetime image (or so you think) that you are so proud of may not be so unique and valuable after all. A commodity that is common will have a low value, while a scarce commodity will increase in value.  No matter how good you are, your images individually are worth less today than they were a few years ago.

The only thing that will drive the price of Microstock images up again is when the submission of new images started to slow because people feel it is not worth the effort and cost anymore.  Microstock are still in a growth period, but as soon as earnings started to seriously decline more and more of the serious contributors will start to look for alternatives.  This shift in supply will once again drive the prices up. My prediction for the future is that with the exception of a few specialized agencies, Micro and Macro stock will meet in the middle with more realistic price for buyers and more realistic earnings for photographers. The key today is to diversify, because we may predict future trends, but not which agencies or models will make it into the future.

« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2009, 04:28 »
0
I like subs.  SS is still by far my highest earning site.  My sales have gone down there but I think photos.com has taken some of their customers.  SS pay me $0.38 commission and I am sure people buy much more than they normally do when they use subs.  Instead of buying just what they need, they try and use up some of their daily allowance and perhaps buy images they wouldn't normally consider. 

Isn't it better to sell 10 at $0.38 than 1 at $2.50?  I do hate selling subs for $0.25 commission, so I no longer upload to those sites.  I would like to see a minimum of $0.35 commission on all of the sites.


DanP68

« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2009, 08:08 »
0
An image of mine - one of my best-sellers -  was purchased at subscription by J.P.Morgan.  They can afford credit prices, can't they? And they would if that's all we offered.  Humpf.  I hate subs. >:(



Would it mean so much more to you if JP Morgan purchased your image PPD for $1 rather than for a slightly less sub cost?  Come on Adelaide, there is no tangible difference.  I can see if you were arguing for JP Morgan to buy from you through a macro agency, but we are only talking about pennies here.  You know how the model works:  sell for less, but sell a lot of them.

hali

« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2009, 08:30 »
0
i suppose we can try to find a middle  area in solving this sad situation.
maybe if we can divide the stuff we think that is worth more than "peanuts"
and assign them to sites that sell it for more eg. alamy, zymmetrical, cutcaster,...
(who else? any suggestion?) and then leave the micro stuff that we won't mind selling for sub-prices (no pun intended). 
only problem is , as much as i like to see the sites that promise us more succeed,
um, i keep going back to PhotoShelter, and can't help to think when or who is the next casualty .
the choice isn't so optimistic. it's still  earn less sell more.

Tuilay

« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2009, 08:36 »
0
Luckily, my subs sales are going down, down, down. Main reason is that SS is just a shadow of it old self. I suspect that due to the financial crisis, many are becoming more selective when it comes to image downloading, which makes subs less economically viable. The "all-you-can-eat" concept may not last forever.
Result: we sell less photos, but earn more, or at least I do  :)

epixx, you may be right. it's like how those impulse buyers go crazy for the garage sales and flea mart and other budget stores. they eventually realise that most of what they buy is quite unnecessary.
then they go back to look for value and paying for the higher priced goods.
let's hope this will happen for subs as well. and soon.

« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2009, 13:21 »
0
So you cut out a lot of the sites. Isn't it better to go exclusive with iStock? For me it was either sell everywhere (inc. subs) or go exclusive with iStock. What % of your income is from iS?

Varies between 20-25%.  Subs sales in total in the end represent a very little portion of my earnings - less than 10% this month.  That's why I would gladly opt out in any site I could.  Late addition: opting out in StockXpert didn't seem to have had any impact in my sales there.

Still, it looks to me now as if most of the sites offering subs has not increased subs sales. For me, they have actually gone down.


Yes, and I believe a good portion of previous SS customers moved to other sites where subs packages are cheaper.  Sales overall may have decreased, as you said, due to the economy.  But I do think that price structures make subs more and more attractive to frequent buyers, not necessarily mass buyers.  As you said, maybe on a busier months they go subs, on another they go credits, but sites are making price structures more attractive to subs buyers even if they are not mass buyers.  Am I wrong about this?  Revisiting the table I did here over 6 months ago, I see DT increased their price packages a bit, but FT actually reduced them, and others remained the same.

Would it mean so much more to you if JP Morgan purchased your image PPD for $1 rather than for a slightly less sub cost?  Come on Adelaide, there is no tangible difference. 


Yes, it would.  As I said, microstock prices are already too cheap and there is no need to make them even cheaper.  And if they had paid US$1, it would mean they purchased a very small image, which maybe costed them about 1/4 its credit price.  For an XL image, cost can be as low as 1/50 its original price.  This is tangible difference for me.

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 13:32 by madelaide »

RacePhoto

« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2009, 13:29 »
0
Luckily, my subs sales are going down, down, down. Main reason is that SS is just a shadow of it old self. I suspect that due to the financial crisis, many are becoming more selective when it comes to image downloading, which makes subs less economically viable. The "all-you-can-eat" concept may not last forever.
Result: we sell less photos, but earn more, or at least I do  :)

epixx, you may be right. it's like how those impulse buyers go crazy for the garage sales and flea mart and other budget stores. they eventually realise that most of what they buy is quite unnecessary.
then they go back to look for value and paying for the higher priced goods.
let's hope this will happen for subs as well. and soon.

Good idea epixx. So Tuilay you've seen my storage area or you've been folling me to church sales and rummage sales? Hmmm?  ;D

I'm still only getting 25c a sub at SS, which should expose my level of total sales. It won't be a long time, but for now I get a quarter. It's fine. Seems that every time I upload something new, it sells. I figure there are some people with subscriptions who are stockpiling stock photos.

Selective uploading, now there's a more reasonable solution than shouting "up the microstock revolution" or boycotting sites.  :D

As soon as I get a payout at the other sites, which looks to be about 2014 since I stopped uploading, I'm going exclusive on SS and Alamy. Before someone finds this message in a year and sees that I'm not doing just that, there is a provision that if dollar volume picks up at any other micro site, I reserve the right to stay with them.

Here are the numbers for 2008. I ignored SV (1), Mostphoto (0), Panther (1) and Featurepics (0). Might as well stick with the ones that count.

SS = 56%
BS = 16%
StockXpert = 13%
DT = 7%
123 = 4%
FT = 2%
IS 1%

Emptied DT in December (one photo left) great site, nice people, I'm just giving up there, didn't get active with 123 until October, BS and StockXpert have more photos than all the others, because they accept more of my photos. SS has 33% of the total number of photos of BS, which BS pays on average, twice as much per sale, but SS sells three times more in actual dollars.

Other than Alamy with 1116 photos, these are the only sites I have subscribed to.

Apparently quality stock sells better on IS DT and FT, which doesn't include mine!

« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2009, 17:23 »
0
My point is that no matter how good your images are, there will be somebody that can produce similar images, and can produce them in bulk. That once in a lifetime image (or so you think) that you are so proud of may not be so unique and valuable after all. A commodity that is common will have a low value, while a scarce commodity will increase in value.  No matter how good you are, your images individually are worth less today than they were a few years ago.
...
The only thing that will drive the price of Microstock images up again is when the submission of new images started to slow because people feel it is not worth the effort and cost anymore.

Correct. I had a great concept 1.5 years ago and the shot sold well, also on SS, for half a year. Then nothing any more. I did a search last week on SS with the relevant keywords and lo and behold, there were 50 with the exactly the same concept. When I let them sort according to upload date, mine was the oldest. I conclude that stock is more and more populated by industrial volume shooters and lurking accountants that spend a lot of time snooping into the most popular images, putting the popular stuff on their checklist, and reshoot it in volume. Not much you can do about it, except do the same.

For non-industrial shooters in Western high-cost countries, stock isn't really worth the effort any more. If they are honest and they count their time and equipment, they actually lose money. They will be the first to go. For East-Europeans and Asians (to come), stock is still very viable as the cost of living there is much lower. I warned for this phenomenon 2 or 3 years ago on another forum and I was greeted with mockery. Now look, all the beginners are Serbians, Russians, Croatians, etc... In the West, you can better go flip hamurgers than shoot for stock. The flipping makes you 8x8 = 64 euro per day and you don't have to buy Photoshop for 1000$ and a noise-free cam every 2-3 years.

DanP68

« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2009, 23:57 »
0

Yes, it would.  As I said, microstock prices are already too cheap and there is no need to make them even cheaper.  And if they had paid US$1, it would mean they purchased a very small image, which maybe costed them about 1/4 its credit price.  For an XL image, cost can be as low as 1/50 its original price.  This is tangible difference for me.


That's actually not true.  It seems whenever someone wants to argue against subscriptions, they always suggest that buyers are paying 25 or 30 cents per image.  If they were, the agencies would have gone out of business long ago.

We don't know how many images buyers actually download during their plan period, but estimations by high end contributors much more in tune than me have suggested it's only like 1/3 to 1/2 of their allotment.  This means if the price per image comes out to 35 cents if they use every download, then the real price per image being paid is somewhere between $0.70 and $1.05  (0.35 x 2 or 3).  The next question to ask is...how many of these images are actually USED?  We assume plenty of subscription downloads never get used by the buyer.  So the price paid per usable image is even higher than the $0.70 to $1.05 estimate.

The same argument is also made that buyers are downloading XXXXXL sizes for these images.  While it would seem to make sense that the buyer would DL the largest size available for an image already paid for, in practice it doesn't seem to be the case.  Before I left Fotolia, I noted the majority of my DL's were an even split between Small and Large, with very little Medium being sold.  Some were even XS.  Most of my sub downloads at DT seem to be Med or Large, even though I have XL or higher res available for a lot of these images.  I guess if all you need is a blog or small size, and time is money, you will download the size you need and not waste the time/bandwidth?

If we are going to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of subscription plans, we should at least move past the idea that "buyers are paying 25 cents to download XXL images."  They aren't.

« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2009, 01:51 »
0

... 

Isn't it better to sell 10 at $0.38 than 1 at $2.50?  I do hate selling subs for $0.25 commission, so I no longer upload to those sites.  I would like to see a minimum of $0.35 commission on all of the sites.

Like most things the answer is "it all depends".  If you mean selling 10 different images for a total of $3.80 versus an image once at $2.50 that would be like asking if it wasn't better to work 10 hours for $3.80 than 1 hour for $2.50!  The answer to that should be obvious.  However, the problem is not that simple since you could be selling the same image 10 times and making $3.80 rather than once for $2.50 but this means that you must be selling every image 10 times as often on a sub site as a PPD site.  If your experience is anything like mine earnings/costs are far from clear cut since other production issues also apply.  For instance, if you are making an image for a PPD site anyway why not upload it to a subs site to get a little more money at very little extra cost.

This is why MS is so much fun!

c h e e r s
fred (belabouring the obvious as usual!)

« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2009, 09:30 »
0
Subs are here because of agencies, not because of us....

Contributors, We need a united campaign against it...

« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2009, 10:08 »
0
I conclude that stock is more and more populated by industrial volume shooters and lurking accountants that spend a lot of time snooping into the most popular images, putting the popular stuff on their checklist, and reshoot it in volume. Not much you can do about it, except do the same.

... and yet everyone gets all excited when someone introduces yet another website that analyzes contributors' work and ranks it and everything.


hali

« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2009, 12:05 »
0
An image of mine - one of my best-sellers -  was purchased at subscription by J.P.Morgan.  They can afford credit prices, can't they? And they would if that's all we offered.  Humpf.  I hate subs. >:(

Regards,
Adelaide

Adelaide, it finally became obvious to me this morning as i am sitting here in front of my computer sipping on my coffee. stock photographers are paid like coffee beans picker of the third world.
welcome to the real world of marketing. our designer clothes, our shoes, our hand lugguge,etc...
all made with cheap labor. once, that would be consider slavery, but not anymore. we are the industrial slaves of the new world. all colors included... ;)

« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2009, 12:13 »
0

Yes, it would.  As I said, microstock prices are already too cheap and there is no need to make them even cheaper.  And if they had paid US$1, it would mean they purchased a very small image, which maybe costed them about 1/4 its credit price.  For an XL image, cost can be as low as 1/50 its original price.  This is tangible difference for me.

That's actually not true.  It seems whenever someone wants to argue against subscriptions, they always suggest that buyers are paying 25 or 30 cents per image.  If they were, the agencies would have gone out of business long ago.

Notice that I said "as low as".  Of course most buyers don't use all their credits. But even if they use only 10% of their credits, they get these too cheap in the already cheap photography world of microstock.

Regards,
Adelaide

DanP68

« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2009, 20:53 »
0
Not really sure why you are contributing to microstock Adelaide.  If the prices are too cheap for your work, take it to macro.  Or stick with Featurepics and keep your prices where you believe they should be.

« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2009, 09:03 »
0
Dan,

In fact I have different portfolios for macro and micro.  Microstock opened a huge new set of consumers who would never purchase photos otherwise. Unfortunately this also brought customers with bigger budgets, but this is not what I am discussing here.  My point is that, even in micro, I think there is no need to reduce prices even further through subs. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2009, 09:35 »
0
My point is that, even in micro, I think there is no need to reduce prices even further through subs. 

Regards,
Adelaide

............................

EXACTLY!

IMHO the low priced SUB's only exists becaurse it to the agencies benefit AND becaurse WE the CONTRIBUTORS actually do obtion IN on the SUB's programs.

If NO contributor accepted it, then the system would'nt be there...

I would'nt be surpriced if the agencies easily could pay twice the current amount, but why do it?` - The contributors are still obtioning IN for the 30 cents...

Best regards
Flemming

« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2009, 09:49 »
0
While SS is my best selling site by far, I don't like subs very much. Subs look like blackmail to me. It's like agencies say: "We have thousands of contributors just like you, and we don't really need you, so we will give out your images for pennies and if you don't like it, you can do nothing except to close your account. We will anyway have enough photos to sell because you contributors can never organize to fight us"

The truth is, if all agencies close their subs options, buyers will still have to buy images from them, probably in the same amount, or maybe just a bit less. But earnings would be much better for everyone...especially for us contributors.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 11:40 by whitechild »

« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2009, 10:07 »
0
Whitechild,

That is exactly the point!

All those stupid contributors are unable to organize so why not "steal" the images and give them away?

It would be very nice to see the real statistics on the sold subscriptions...
'

- How many of the allowed images are downloaded?
- The turnover / the expence for contributors....


My guess is that the agencies are the real big time winners here... And they can't stop lauhing - on the contributors expence  >:(


Kind regards
Flemming

« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2009, 18:17 »
0
I see things a bit different.  Maybe it's because I'm still learning to become a better photographer (although, do we ever stop learning?). 
I started taking pictures about 3 years ago.  After awhile, people I knew kept telling me I was in the wrong line of work and I should be doing photography professionally.  So, I got myself a website where I could sell my prints.  I've advertised and handed out business cards.  Guess what....zero sales after a whole year. 
I took the same pictures and put them on SS and have been making a small but steady income.   I wasn't making anything off those pictures.  Now I am. 
And I'm even published in a book selling at Costco.  Pretty good bragging rights for me at this point of my early photography career.
Sure, I would like to be making more for my pictures, but I haven't developed my talent, gotten a big reputation, and amazing equipment. 
For an amateur photographer, I'm pretty happy with my "second" job. 
Maybe someday I'll be able to quit my day job.  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2368 Views
Last post June 21, 2013, 11:45
by Ron
22 Replies
11004 Views
Last post March 17, 2014, 11:11
by cobalt
10 Replies
6933 Views
Last post October 07, 2014, 02:17
by Hobostocker
14 Replies
4435 Views
Last post July 18, 2018, 18:32
by namussi
Stop The Hate - VOTE!

Started by RAW « 1 2  All » Off Topic

47 Replies
35806 Views
Last post February 25, 2020, 07:31
by DianeLambert

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors